The Student Room Group

Is lslam fuelling the right wings debate on immigration?

Scroll to see replies

Original post by Good bloke
I'm not sure they have freedom of movement like EU citizens, at least before they gain the inevitable citizenship..


Ah then not an issue if we restrict the right to gain citizenship as you suggest (and I'm sure the majority would support)
Reply 21
Original post by DiceTheSlice
:colonhash:

:colonhash:


Every country will face terror threats from militias.

Branding terrorism as "Islamic Terrorism" just reeks delusion. Anyone who has failed life will join Isis and company. Regardless of race, gender whatever.

regardless of race gender yes, but not of religion - these people identify themselves as islamic. indeed a number of islamic people who had been granted asylum here in the past went on to be implicated in terrorism.

many non muslim countries have to deal with problems of islamic terrorism too.
Reply 22
Original post by tebr
What i'm saying is that if the west had never attacked the Middle East years ago, extremist groups wouldn't have formed and thus countries like Syria wouldn't be in a horrendous state.


the west did not ' attack Middle East' - it attacked saddams regieme and assisted local libyan groups attack gaddafi. syria is a civil war drawn up on islamic lines ( shia vs sunni) and that conflict is 1300 years old, it drawn in forces from all over the globe, not just syria. islamic world has been unable to find an equilbrium of peace.. seems funny seeing that muslims claim islam means peace.
(edited 8 years ago)
Reply 23
Original post by typonaut
The issue is not necessarily Islam, but "difference" - that is what drives the right wing. A simple example of this is that there are around 1-1.5 million Hindus and Sikhs (combined total) in the UK, but you almost never never hear these groups mentioned in news bulletins. This is largely because they are more established in the UK and more integrated.


not just them, hindus sikhs jews buddhist and taoists you name it, all have settled here and made a success of their arrival comfortably and integrated at least to some significant extent and most importantly not stirred up trouble by being here. islam is the common factor when it comes to looking at root causes of various troubles globally, so that is the factor that makes integrating these muslims in places outside the islamic world , lets face it islam poorly prepares them for living in the real world
Original post by Reformed
regardless of race gender yes, but not of religion - these people identify themselves as islamic. indeed a number of islamic people who had been granted asylum here in the past went on to be implicated in terrorism.

many non muslim countries have to deal with problems of islamic terrorism too.


There are people who were in jail, high on heroine, frustrated shopkeepers and sons of bankers joining isis.

And none of them were born with an Islamic upbringing. Research FFS.

Only thing these people have in common is to kill and terrorize people.
Original post by tebr
Fair enough there has always been tension between Shias and Sunnis. However, there were never such severe attacks against each other before the Iraq war. In the last decade, thousands and thousands of Muslims have been killed in Shia vs Sunni attacks which wouldn't have occurred if the West hadn't destroyed Iraq and Afghanistan which is what lead to Islamic extremism. As for "Saddam's regime", that was just an excuse for the West to go into Iraq and steal their oil. Over a million innocent Iraqi citizens including thousands of children were slaughtered because of USA and Britain and their country was completely destroyed. In what way is that an improvement of the Iraq Saddam ruled?
as time goes by, the fact that Saddam was overthrown by the US becomes less and less decisive in evaluating the Iraqi situation

the Shias had already tried a general insurrection against Saddam in the wake of the first Gulf war in 1990, and the West was criticised for "abandoning" them to their fate. The Kurds had been massacred several times by Saddam (including with poison gas) and again, the West was criticised for not intervening to protect them

In Iraq, Shias and Sunnis, after the all-out civil war, had agreed to some kind of power-sharing in 2009-2010, leading to a clear fall in violence, but this soon fell apart, and violence resumed. Then, the "Caliphate" chipped in etc etc

as time goes by however, blaming the West for what happens in Iraq starts to resemble blaming the British if India and Pakistan are clashing.

Bottom line : dictatorships are, by their essence, institutionally fragile, because everything depends from the dictator's personality and succession to power can easily end up in civil war

and, ultimately, people (and States) are responsible for their own fate
Reply 26
Original post by tebr
Fair enough there has always been tension between Shias and Sunnis. However, there were never such severe attacks against each other before the Iraq war. In the last decade, thousands and thousands of Muslims have been killed in Shia vs Sunni attacks which wouldn't have occurred if the West hadn't destroyed Iraq and Afghanistan which is what lead to Islamic extremism. As for "Saddam's regime", that was just an excuse for the West to go into Iraq and steal their oil. Over a million innocent Iraqi citizens including thousands of children were slaughtered because of USA and Britain and their country was completely destroyed. In what way is that an improvement of the Iraq Saddam ruled?


this is just a postion of ignorance - islamic terrorism has pre-dated the iraq war by many decades - even if you ignore 9/11 which was pre , nd the various other attack that preceeded ie world trade bombing, us nairobi embassy etc your ignorance could extend to the fact that islamic terrosim has been an ongoing problem for various countries outside the west for generations - in asia, middle east and africa. we are past the point where we can only look at how things affect us today and ignore what went on outside our bubble.

the only difference we are seeing today is that more and more musilims from the islamic world are seeing the West as a more suitable home
(edited 8 years ago)
Reply 27
Original post by DiceTheSlice
There are people who were in jail, high on heroine, frustrated shopkeepers and sons of bankers joining isis.
so what, doesnt mean these people are not muslims, or could not become muslims - all sorts of crazy people have converted io islam, did you know a huge percentage of convert to islam are convicted criminals in prison?

Original post by DiceTheSlice


Only thing these people have in common is to kill and terrorize people.


maybe, but they get inspired by islam to put the ideas into practice
Original post by Reformed
not just them, hindus sikhs jews buddhist and taoists you name it, all have settled here and made a success of their arrival comfortably and integrated at least to some significant extent and most importantly not stirred up trouble by being here. islam is the common factor when it comes to looking at root causes of various troubles globally, so that is the factor that makes integrating these muslims in places outside the islamic world , lets face it islam poorly prepares them for living in the real world
correct

in Islam, there is undoubtedly the notion that islam will have to dominate the world, and that Muslims are entrusted with a specific mission to spread Islam

with peaceful means (dawah) if possible, but if they feel that their peaceful efforts are being unjustly hindered or opposed, then also with violence

non-proselityzing religions (such as Judaism, Sikhism etc) do not present this specific problem
Reply 29
Original post by mariachi
and, ultimately, people (and States) are responsible for their own fate


Not when states go around invading, occupying and terrorising other states in order to actively promote a certain ideology or have the means to propagate a certain idea, stemming from a small number of people, onto millions of people.
Original post by BaconandSauce
All Imams to be UK trained and vetted by the security services and all services to be in English


This seems impractical on a number of levels: are you banning imams who are trained in France, or the USA? At the very least the former may fall foul of EU regulations. Your proposal would also assume that there is the infrastructure available in the UK to provide this training. Finally, making people conduct services in English would seem to breach their freedom of religion rights. Are you also suggesting that those attending French or Polish churches also hear services only in English?

No outside funding for UK mosques if you want it you pay for yourself


So, again, you would be banning money from France, or the USA. I know, for example, that some money for UK mosques has come from Saudi Arabia or Brunei - are you saying that these sources cannot be trusted? Are you also saying that no organisation within the UK can receive money from abroad - ie christian or jewish groups, or charities like Oxfam, Amnesty International or Greenpeace?

Ban all Un-Stunned Halal and Kosher meat in the UK


Do you know the percentage of such is unstunned?

Remove halal as the default meat option in all schools and food premises that cater to the wider public and halal\kosher slaughtered meat imported must be labeled. If muslims want it they can pay the extra costs that go with it. Also we have equality legislation in the UK and the production of Halal can't meet these standards so should not be available in public funded premises (schools Hospitals etc...)


Why do you think that halal is the default option? What evidence do you have for this? Why is Halal in breach of equality legislation?

A legal requirement that all muslim marriages need to be registered in the UK and prosecutions for those who fail to comply.


Surely if they are not registered in the UK they are not "legal"?

All sharia 'court' rulings to be vetted by a UK trained solicitor and any rulings that do not comply with UK law must not be issued and again prosecution of those who fail to comply)


No. This is not right. Sharia courts should be explicitly banned. There is no place in this country for two tiers of law, depending on your faith.

And the simple message if you don't like our society and our freedoms you are free to leave but you will not longer be pandered to.


Don't they already know they are free to leave!?

Removal of Human Rights protection for those who preach Human rights are incompatible with Islam


So, you're saying that if I say Human Rights are incompatible with Islam (or vice versa) I should have my Human Rights removed?

Preaching aspects of Islam incompatible with a modern society (the freedom to change your faith and marry who you like) to be restricted in UK mosques


So, you'd say the same for elements of christian doctrine?

Removal of Social support for those who reuse to interact with the wider society (we have no issues in the choices you make just don;t expect me to fund them)


How would you measure this? Are you going to set up a new arm of the civil service, the "Integration Police"?

A reminder of the basic principle of ONE LAW FOR ALL


You have just undermined that idea on a number of fronts: accepting sharia courts, seeming to say that muslims are to me treated differently to christians or jews, seeming to call for the removal of the rights of certain groups…
Original post by BaconandSauce
…and EU freedom of moment rights for asylum seekers


Just to put this one to bed. The EU regulation is free movement of workers, not people, so at the very least people would have to qualify as genuine asylum seekers in order to be able to work (legally).
Original post by typonaut
This seems impractical on a number of levels: are you banning imams who are trained in France, or the USA? At the very least the former may fall foul of EU regulations. Your proposal would also assume that there is the infrastructure available in the UK to provide this training. Finally, making people conduct services in English would seem to breach their freedom of religion rights. Are you also suggesting that those attending French or Polish churches also hear services only in English?


Yes they should be UK qualified as the UK is not France or the USA.

Nothing wrong with saying services should be in the language of a persons country now is there. If we had the same issue with the French or Polish Churches then yes I would



So, again, you would be banning money from France, or the USA. I know, for example, that some money for UK mosques has come from Saudi Arabia or Brunei - are you saying that these sources cannot be trusted? Are you also saying that no organisation within the UK can receive money from abroad - ie christian or jewish groups, or charities like Oxfam, Amnesty International or Greenpeace?


No just muslim ones give the issue we have with the sources of money coming from intolerant countries preaching an intolerant form of Islam. Any other groups having the same issues should be treated accordingly

Do you know the percentage of such is unstunned?


about 20% doesn't negate it should all be pre-stunned


Why do you think that halal is the default option? What evidence do you have for this? Why is Halal in breach of equality legislation?


an example '
http://www.guardian-series.co.uk/news/10334813.Halal_meat_served_in_three_quarters_of_council_supported_schools/'

Restricting who can do the Job it must be a MAN it must be a MUSLIM. this is why it goes against equality legislation

Surely if they are not registered in the UK they are not "legal"?
they have no legal standing yes doesn't stop them from happening though and the awful consequences of not having the legal protection

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8493660.stm

No. This is not right. Sharia courts should be explicitly banned. There is no place in this country for two tiers of law, depending on your faith.


I have no issue with arbitration but it must comply with the UK laws

Don't they already know they are free to leave!?


Yes they do but there's a difference between knowing and being TOLD by the government.

So, you're saying that if I say Human Rights are incompatible with Islam (or vice versa) I should have my Human Rights removed?


Yes if you are out preaching this then you can't complain when you are refused access to them or legislation based on them. I've always said if you want to reduce muslim prisoners simply tell muslims we will start to implement the hudud punishments for criminality.

So, you'd say the same for elements of christian doctrine?


for comparable issues yes I'd have no issues at all

How would you measure this? Are you going to set up a new arm of the civil service, the "Integration Police"?


If needed then yes but we already have departments like social services etc..


You have just undermined that idea on a number of fronts: accepting sharia courts, seeming to say that muslims are to me treated differently to christians or jews, seeming to call for the removal of the rights of certain groups…


No not really arbitration is acceptable win the UK and I don't care what they call themselves as long as they are making judgments in accordance with existing UK law.
(edited 8 years ago)
Original post by typonaut
Just to put this one to bed. The EU regulation is free movement of workers, not people, so at the very least people would have to qualify as genuine asylum seekers in order to be able to work (legally).


and that's the issue

claim asylum in Germany get citizenship and then move straight to the UK

For example

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Somalis_in_the_United_Kingdom#Secondary_migrationSecondary migrationThere has also been some secondary migration of Somalis to the UK from the Netherlands, Sweden and Denmark.[43][44] According to refugee expert Jill Rutter, in some locations, secondary migrants make up the majority of the Somali community.[45] An academic article published in 2011 suggests that, since 2000, between 10,000 and 20,000 Somalis in the Netherlands have moved to the UK.[44]
Original post by Errm6
Not when states go around invading, occupying and terrorising other states in order to actively promote a certain ideology or have the means to propagate a certain idea, stemming from a small number of people, onto millions of people.


You've just described the spread of Islam
Reply 35
Original post by BaconandSauce
You've just described the spread of Islam


So what's the difference between what you purport Islam to be doing and Western imperialist forces?

Why are we fighting the Muslims, if as you suggest, they are like us?
Original post by Errm6

Why are we fighting the Muslims, if as you suggest, they are like us?


Not what I've suggested at all
Original post by tebr
What i'm saying is that if the west had never attacked the Middle East years ago, extremist groups wouldn't have formed and thus countries like Syria wouldn't be in a horrendous state.


while you are right about the iraq war, which is totally illegal. i doubt things would have ended differently. The sunni and shia battle will still rage on, saddam hussein will still be alive and oppress his own people, and those oppressed would still seek refuge in europe.
(edited 8 years ago)
Reply 38
Original post by HucktheForde
while you are right about the iraq war, which is totally illegal. i doubt things would have ended differently. The sunni and shia battle will still rage on, saddam hussein will still be alive and oppress his own people, and those who seek better lives would still run to europe.


And so the trickle, turned into a flood...
Reply 39
Original post by BaconandSauce
Not what I've suggested at all


I suggest you read it back over...

Quick Reply

Latest